<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A brief report from today&#8217;s debate.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://scepticsbook.com/2009/05/02/a-brief-report-from-todays-debate/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://scepticsbook.com/2009/05/02/a-brief-report-from-todays-debate/</link>
	<description>Contains Reason. Not Excuses.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 07:27:10 +1100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Antivax kills. &#124; Bad Astronomy &#124; Discover Magazine</title>
		<link>http://scepticsbook.com/2009/05/02/a-brief-report-from-todays-debate/comment-page-2/#comment-3411</link>
		<dc:creator>Antivax kills. &#124; Bad Astronomy &#124; Discover Magazine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 05:42:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scepticsbook.com/?p=1165#comment-3411</guid>
		<description>[...] Richard Saunders and Rachael Dunlop from The Australian Skeptics were there &#8212; you can read Rachael&#8217;s personal account of the forum &#8212; and Richard has posted video from the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Richard Saunders and Rachael Dunlop from The Australian Skeptics were there &#8212; you can read Rachael&#8217;s personal account of the forum &#8212; and Richard has posted video from the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Grendel</title>
		<link>http://scepticsbook.com/2009/05/02/a-brief-report-from-todays-debate/comment-page-2/#comment-2105</link>
		<dc:creator>Grendel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:04:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scepticsbook.com/?p=1165#comment-2105</guid>
		<description>@ Where are the fact - I just found your reference list:

http://menopause.gaia.com/blog/2008/1/hpv_vaccine_alternative_view

So again - did you read any of these or just cut and paste the list?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Where are the fact &#8211; I just found your reference list:</p>
<p><a href="http://menopause.gaia.com/blog/2008/1/hpv_vaccine_alternative_view" rel="nofollow">http://menopause.gaia.com/blog/2008/1/hpv_vaccine_alternative_view</a></p>
<p>So again &#8211; did you read any of these or just cut and paste the list?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kaa</title>
		<link>http://scepticsbook.com/2009/05/02/a-brief-report-from-todays-debate/comment-page-2/#comment-2103</link>
		<dc:creator>Kaa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:12:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scepticsbook.com/?p=1165#comment-2103</guid>
		<description>@where are the facts:

&lt;i&gt;“Also how do you explain the 1300% increase in Autism in developed countries?”&lt;/i&gt;

Pay attention. People have answered this question OVER and OVER and OVER.  You apparently either are not listening or you don&#039;t like the answer, so you ignore it.

The number of conditions that are diagnosed as &quot;autism&quot; has increased over the years as the medical community has learned more. The rate of diagnosed autism cases has risen as a result of more conditions being included in the autism spectrum. The question has been asked and &lt;i&gt;answered&lt;/i&gt;. I fail to see why you can&#039;t comprehend this.  This cannot be the first time you&#039;ve been given the answer to the question, yet &lt;i&gt;&lt;b&gt;you keep asking it over and over and over&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/i&gt;!

Just &lt;i&gt;once&lt;/i&gt; I&#039;d like to see even &lt;i&gt;one&lt;/i&gt; of you anti-vax people actually &lt;i&gt;listen&lt;/i&gt; to an answer to one of your questions. Go do the research! You claim you and &lt;i&gt;only&lt;/i&gt; you seem to be able to do simple research: prove it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@where are the facts:</p>
<p><i>“Also how do you explain the 1300% increase in Autism in developed countries?”</i></p>
<p>Pay attention. People have answered this question OVER and OVER and OVER.  You apparently either are not listening or you don&#8217;t like the answer, so you ignore it.</p>
<p>The number of conditions that are diagnosed as &#8220;autism&#8221; has increased over the years as the medical community has learned more. The rate of diagnosed autism cases has risen as a result of more conditions being included in the autism spectrum. The question has been asked and <i>answered</i>. I fail to see why you can&#8217;t comprehend this.  This cannot be the first time you&#8217;ve been given the answer to the question, yet <i><b>you keep asking it over and over and over</b></i>!</p>
<p>Just <i>once</i> I&#8217;d like to see even <i>one</i> of you anti-vax people actually <i>listen</i> to an answer to one of your questions. Go do the research! You claim you and <i>only</i> you seem to be able to do simple research: prove it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Grendel</title>
		<link>http://scepticsbook.com/2009/05/02/a-brief-report-from-todays-debate/comment-page-2/#comment-2099</link>
		<dc:creator>Grendel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:58:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scepticsbook.com/?p=1165#comment-2099</guid>
		<description>Thank you Toni, Your steadfast position admist your grief is an amazing contribution to the parents of Australia who care enough about children, their own as well as the children of others, to vaccinate to save lives.


@ where are the facts - you didn&#039;t read a single one of those papers did you? Do you even have access through the paywalls? I do. I think I&#039;d like to see you summarize those papers and explain how a paper from 1983 discusses the effectiveness or dangers of Gardasil? For that matter, since Gardasil was released for general use only in 2006, perhaps you could explain the relevance of all of your citations to the vaccine that date prior to the vaccines release?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you Toni, Your steadfast position admist your grief is an amazing contribution to the parents of Australia who care enough about children, their own as well as the children of others, to vaccinate to save lives.</p>
<p>@ where are the facts &#8211; you didn&#8217;t read a single one of those papers did you? Do you even have access through the paywalls? I do. I think I&#8217;d like to see you summarize those papers and explain how a paper from 1983 discusses the effectiveness or dangers of Gardasil? For that matter, since Gardasil was released for general use only in 2006, perhaps you could explain the relevance of all of your citations to the vaccine that date prior to the vaccines release?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: &#187; Toni McCaffery has had enough.</title>
		<link>http://scepticsbook.com/2009/05/02/a-brief-report-from-todays-debate/comment-page-2/#comment-2094</link>
		<dc:creator>&#187; Toni McCaffery has had enough.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 07:20:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scepticsbook.com/?p=1165#comment-2094</guid>
		<description>[...] Toni&#8217;s comment is re-posted below, with her permission. You can see the entire comments thread here. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Toni&#8217;s comment is re-posted below, with her permission. You can see the entire comments thread here. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Toni McCaffery</title>
		<link>http://scepticsbook.com/2009/05/02/a-brief-report-from-todays-debate/comment-page-2/#comment-2074</link>
		<dc:creator>Toni McCaffery</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 07:59:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scepticsbook.com/?p=1165#comment-2074</guid>
		<description>@where are the facts

Where is your sense of human decency? Your comments are the most hateful and hurtful words that any grieving parent could read.

As Dana&#039;s parents, we are absolutely outraged that groups such as the AVN are intent on proving that Pertussis did not kill her and is not dangerous. We expected opposition to vaccination, but it is unacceptable and despicable that we have to &#039;prove&#039; that Pertussis killed her. Haven&#039;t we suffered enough - now we have to defend the very thing that killed her.

We are outraged that without our knowledge, Meryl Dorey rang the Director of the NCAHS Public Health Unit on 12 March seeking details on Dana&#039;s death and contended the department had misled the public.

Even after I told Meryl what happened to Dana at the debate, a few weeks afterwards I found an AVN blog with members making false claims that stated they had information she was sick from birth, immune-compromised from the HiB vaccine or died as a result of the antibiotics or medical treatment she received. 

Not only is no-one privy to this information, it is wrong and extremely distressing. In the latest Living Wisdom, Meryl got every fact wrong about Dana - her age, when she died, where she might have caught it, when the last death was and uses language to downplay the seriousness. 

I am pleading with the AVN to leave my beautiful daughter alone and stop this misleading chatter. And I plead to other parents, please do not expose your child to this dangerous disease.

Don&#039;t you think as Dana&#039;s parents, watching every agonising moment of her death, we would know what killed her. We undertook extensive research and spoke with the specialists over several weeks to understand what happened.

Let me be very clear. She was born in perfect health, was breastfed and was putting on weight. Nothing is sacred. We decided to speak out after reading comments in media and blog sites that dismissed the severity of whooping cough, claims of ‘only one baby’, criticisms that we had not acted quickly and that I had not passed on immunity to Dana through breastfeeding. 

Reading this blog is almost too much to bear!

Let me be very, very clear - Pertussis can and does kill 1 in 200 babies. Sadly, THREE babies have died in Australia this year - we are the only family to go public and I wouldn&#039;t recommend it. If your baby is &#039;the one&#039; - it is unstoppable.

The intensive care experts were in contact with experts all around the world and tried everything. I stood and watched them try to save her and did the unthinkable and wished she had cancer instead, because maybe then she would have had a chance.

Meryl might call what we have done a fear campaign. We call it a reality check. We only wished someone had warned us of the epidemic as we would have done everything in our power to protect Dana from catching it.

We saw the healthiest, most beautiful baby suffer the most agonising death - and there was nothing we could do.

We will not stand by and let this happen to another family.

Please STOP DEBATING our daughter&#039;s death. Show some respect and leave Dana in peace. We are so sorry we have exposed our beautiful girl to such hurtful people.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@where are the facts</p>
<p>Where is your sense of human decency? Your comments are the most hateful and hurtful words that any grieving parent could read.</p>
<p>As Dana&#8217;s parents, we are absolutely outraged that groups such as the AVN are intent on proving that Pertussis did not kill her and is not dangerous. We expected opposition to vaccination, but it is unacceptable and despicable that we have to &#8216;prove&#8217; that Pertussis killed her. Haven&#8217;t we suffered enough &#8211; now we have to defend the very thing that killed her.</p>
<p>We are outraged that without our knowledge, Meryl Dorey rang the Director of the NCAHS Public Health Unit on 12 March seeking details on Dana&#8217;s death and contended the department had misled the public.</p>
<p>Even after I told Meryl what happened to Dana at the debate, a few weeks afterwards I found an AVN blog with members making false claims that stated they had information she was sick from birth, immune-compromised from the HiB vaccine or died as a result of the antibiotics or medical treatment she received. </p>
<p>Not only is no-one privy to this information, it is wrong and extremely distressing. In the latest Living Wisdom, Meryl got every fact wrong about Dana &#8211; her age, when she died, where she might have caught it, when the last death was and uses language to downplay the seriousness. </p>
<p>I am pleading with the AVN to leave my beautiful daughter alone and stop this misleading chatter. And I plead to other parents, please do not expose your child to this dangerous disease.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t you think as Dana&#8217;s parents, watching every agonising moment of her death, we would know what killed her. We undertook extensive research and spoke with the specialists over several weeks to understand what happened.</p>
<p>Let me be very clear. She was born in perfect health, was breastfed and was putting on weight. Nothing is sacred. We decided to speak out after reading comments in media and blog sites that dismissed the severity of whooping cough, claims of ‘only one baby’, criticisms that we had not acted quickly and that I had not passed on immunity to Dana through breastfeeding. </p>
<p>Reading this blog is almost too much to bear!</p>
<p>Let me be very, very clear &#8211; Pertussis can and does kill 1 in 200 babies. Sadly, THREE babies have died in Australia this year &#8211; we are the only family to go public and I wouldn&#8217;t recommend it. If your baby is &#8216;the one&#8217; &#8211; it is unstoppable.</p>
<p>The intensive care experts were in contact with experts all around the world and tried everything. I stood and watched them try to save her and did the unthinkable and wished she had cancer instead, because maybe then she would have had a chance.</p>
<p>Meryl might call what we have done a fear campaign. We call it a reality check. We only wished someone had warned us of the epidemic as we would have done everything in our power to protect Dana from catching it.</p>
<p>We saw the healthiest, most beautiful baby suffer the most agonising death &#8211; and there was nothing we could do.</p>
<p>We will not stand by and let this happen to another family.</p>
<p>Please STOP DEBATING our daughter&#8217;s death. Show some respect and leave Dana in peace. We are so sorry we have exposed our beautiful girl to such hurtful people.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Maggie</title>
		<link>http://scepticsbook.com/2009/05/02/a-brief-report-from-todays-debate/comment-page-2/#comment-2017</link>
		<dc:creator>Maggie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:48:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scepticsbook.com/?p=1165#comment-2017</guid>
		<description>@watf

Can you please detail what you mean by the following;



&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;...on pubmed all studies showing that vaccination was not good for you only listed the magazines to go reference, yet looking for articles that claim vaccinations are safe are all there to be read.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;



Do you mean you had to have a subscription to read the bad-vax articles? Can you provide an example please? I am surprised by this, since most journals require a subscription and this is independent on the type/tone of the article. 

Also, you mention that you do not use homeopathy as an alternative to vaccination. AndyD may have used this example since Meryl Dorey has stated that she used it to treat whooping cough in her children (he can confirm this). 

Finally, any particular reason why you have included a long list of articles about Gardisil?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@watf</p>
<p>Can you please detail what you mean by the following;</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;&#8230;on pubmed all studies showing that vaccination was not good for you only listed the magazines to go reference, yet looking for articles that claim vaccinations are safe are all there to be read.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Do you mean you had to have a subscription to read the bad-vax articles? Can you provide an example please? I am surprised by this, since most journals require a subscription and this is independent on the type/tone of the article. </p>
<p>Also, you mention that you do not use homeopathy as an alternative to vaccination. AndyD may have used this example since Meryl Dorey has stated that she used it to treat whooping cough in her children (he can confirm this). </p>
<p>Finally, any particular reason why you have included a long list of articles about Gardisil?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: where are the facts</title>
		<link>http://scepticsbook.com/2009/05/02/a-brief-report-from-todays-debate/comment-page-2/#comment-2016</link>
		<dc:creator>where are the facts</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:24:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scepticsbook.com/?p=1165#comment-2016</guid>
		<description>@Fuzztwin, upon doing a recent research project for university I found it extremely interesting that on pubmed all studies showing that vaccination was not good for you only listed the magazines to go reference, yet looking for articles that claim vaccinations are safe are all there to be read.
It&#039;s all so funny how know it all guru&#039;s like yourselves think that you can counterclaim everything the antivaccine do, but isn&#039;t it the same for the people for vaccines. Also isn&#039;t it a scientist job to try and prove things wrong.
If the AVN promotes scare tactics, than what do you think the big pharma also do? Are you lining up to get the swine flu injection that has now become available, as this epidemic was televised to be fatal, yet in Australia we have seen no deaths, and the general flu is actually having worse side effects than the swine flu. Or what about in the European countries this year, how is it possible that a company that manufactures immunizations could actually contaminate the flu vaccine with avian flu?
http://www.newsofinterest.tv/pharma/baxter_avian_2009_03_05.phphttp://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/04/23/mercury-poison.aspx
While your at it why not check out these references about gardasil.
1. Ho, G.Y., Bierman R., Beardsley, L., et. al., 1998. Natural 
history of 
cervicovaginal papillomavirus infection in young women, N Engl J 
Med, 
338:423-428. 
2. Woodman, C.B., Collins, S., Winter, H., et. al., 2001. Natural 
history 
of cervical human papillomavirus infection in young women: a 
longitudinal 
cohort study, Lancet, 357:1831-1836. 
3. Nasiell, K., Nasiell, M., Vaclavinkova, V., 1983. Behavior of 
moderate 
cervical dysplasia during long-term follow-up, Obstet Gynecol, 
61:609-614. 
4. Richart, R.M., Barron, B.A., 1969. A follow-up study of patients 
with 
cervical dysplasia, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 105:386-393. 
5. Davey, D.D., et. al., 2004. Implementation and reporting rates: 
2003 
practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists 
Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch 
Pathol 
Lab Med., 128:1224-1229. 
6. Manos, M.M., et. al., 1999. Identifying women with cervical 
neoplasia: 
using human papillomavirus DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou 
results, 
JAMA, 281:1605-1610. 
7. ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS) Group. 2003. Results of a 
randomized 
trial on the management of cytology interpretations of atypical 
squamous 
cells of undetermined significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 188:1383- 
1392. 
8. Adams, A., et. al., 2006. Negative colposcopic biopsy after 
positive 
Human Papillomavirus DNA testing: false positive HPV results or 
false-negative histologic findings, Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;125 
(3):413-418. 
9. Merck &amp; Co., Inc. 2006. Gardasil [Quadrivalent Human 
Papillomavirus Types 
6,11,16,18 Recombinant Vaccine] product insert. Table 6. 
 Like Interested says. there is tonnes of info available if your prepared to look. But it is obvious that you are as one sided as it gets.
As for you Andy D. I am able to pull references from more than the AVN, although it is useful, especially considering the articles recieved in the newsletters are fully referenced for me to continue searching! Also by choosing not to vaccinate does not mean that I enter into homeopathy either, so maybe your stereotyping is best kept to yourself. Also if you are so stupid as to not seek alternative therapies, well more fool you! The ocassional physio, chiropractor and accupunture (a proven practice around way before western medicine)visit to recieve optimum health as well as excercise and good eating should keep the most people healthy.
Therefore I bid you all Goodbye and wish you all the best in the Western Medicine intervention. I hope that in old age, all the antibiotics and other drugs you&#039;ve been given over time will still work and that you are not immune as so many already are.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Fuzztwin, upon doing a recent research project for university I found it extremely interesting that on pubmed all studies showing that vaccination was not good for you only listed the magazines to go reference, yet looking for articles that claim vaccinations are safe are all there to be read.<br />
It&#8217;s all so funny how know it all guru&#8217;s like yourselves think that you can counterclaim everything the antivaccine do, but isn&#8217;t it the same for the people for vaccines. Also isn&#8217;t it a scientist job to try and prove things wrong.<br />
If the AVN promotes scare tactics, than what do you think the big pharma also do? Are you lining up to get the swine flu injection that has now become available, as this epidemic was televised to be fatal, yet in Australia we have seen no deaths, and the general flu is actually having worse side effects than the swine flu. Or what about in the European countries this year, how is it possible that a company that manufactures immunizations could actually contaminate the flu vaccine with avian flu?<br />
<a href="http://www.newsofinterest.tv/pharma/baxter_avian_2009_03_05.phphttp://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/04/23/mercury-poison.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.newsofinterest.tv/pharma/baxter_avian_2009_03_05.phphttp://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/04/23/mercury-poison.aspx</a><br />
While your at it why not check out these references about gardasil.<br />
1. Ho, G.Y., Bierman R., Beardsley, L., et. al., 1998. Natural<br />
history of<br />
cervicovaginal papillomavirus infection in young women, N Engl J<br />
Med,<br />
338:423-428.<br />
2. Woodman, C.B., Collins, S., Winter, H., et. al., 2001. Natural<br />
history<br />
of cervical human papillomavirus infection in young women: a<br />
longitudinal<br />
cohort study, Lancet, 357:1831-1836.<br />
3. Nasiell, K., Nasiell, M., Vaclavinkova, V., 1983. Behavior of<br />
moderate<br />
cervical dysplasia during long-term follow-up, Obstet Gynecol,<br />
61:609-614.<br />
4. Richart, R.M., Barron, B.A., 1969. A follow-up study of patients<br />
with<br />
cervical dysplasia, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 105:386-393.<br />
5. Davey, D.D., et. al., 2004. Implementation and reporting rates:<br />
2003<br />
practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists<br />
Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch<br />
Pathol<br />
Lab Med., 128:1224-1229.<br />
6. Manos, M.M., et. al., 1999. Identifying women with cervical<br />
neoplasia:<br />
using human papillomavirus DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou<br />
results,<br />
JAMA, 281:1605-1610.<br />
7. ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS) Group. 2003. Results of a<br />
randomized<br />
trial on the management of cytology interpretations of atypical<br />
squamous<br />
cells of undetermined significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 188:1383-<br />
1392.<br />
8. Adams, A., et. al., 2006. Negative colposcopic biopsy after<br />
positive<br />
Human Papillomavirus DNA testing: false positive HPV results or<br />
false-negative histologic findings, Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;125<br />
(3):413-418.<br />
9. Merck &amp; Co., Inc. 2006. Gardasil [Quadrivalent Human<br />
Papillomavirus Types<br />
6,11,16,18 Recombinant Vaccine] product insert. Table 6.<br />
 Like Interested says. there is tonnes of info available if your prepared to look. But it is obvious that you are as one sided as it gets.<br />
As for you Andy D. I am able to pull references from more than the AVN, although it is useful, especially considering the articles recieved in the newsletters are fully referenced for me to continue searching! Also by choosing not to vaccinate does not mean that I enter into homeopathy either, so maybe your stereotyping is best kept to yourself. Also if you are so stupid as to not seek alternative therapies, well more fool you! The ocassional physio, chiropractor and accupunture (a proven practice around way before western medicine)visit to recieve optimum health as well as excercise and good eating should keep the most people healthy.<br />
Therefore I bid you all Goodbye and wish you all the best in the Western Medicine intervention. I hope that in old age, all the antibiotics and other drugs you&#8217;ve been given over time will still work and that you are not immune as so many already are.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fuzztwin</title>
		<link>http://scepticsbook.com/2009/05/02/a-brief-report-from-todays-debate/comment-page-2/#comment-2014</link>
		<dc:creator>Fuzztwin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 05:15:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scepticsbook.com/?p=1165#comment-2014</guid>
		<description>@Interested asked:
&lt;b&gt;I’m also curious as to why you have an issue with the AVN..I was unaware that there was any particular motive, other then information distribution, that this organisation had….have they also claimed to see alien life lately?&lt;/b&gt;

Not that I&#039;m aware of, but they do claim various conspiracies whenever it suits them, e.g. snippets from Meryl Dorey, National President, Australian Vaccination Network:

&quot;Our governments are all in the pockets of Monsanto and the like&quot;

&quot;This is not journalism, this is marketing and Channel 7 is nothing more than a paid stooge for Big Pharma.&quot;

&quot;This is the sort of nonsense these &#039;medical experts&#039; are spreading - the sort of dangerous, illogical treatments they are pushing. And their word is law - and our side gets no credibility despite having the information and research on our side.&quot;

This vilification of the medical community is simply sociopathic when we compare our quality of life to that of our great-grandparents. Where is the &lt;b&gt;proper research&lt;/b&gt; from anti-vaccination groups that they claim to have? Once again, for the umpteenth time, I&#039;d love to see it.

The AVN clearly promote the Big Pharma conspiracy, remain closed to all evidence that threatens their belief system, and therefore one can safely conclude that they are on the whole irrational, and should not be taken seriously. Not exactly an equal authority Vs. authority or reference Vs reference now, is it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Interested asked:<br />
<b>I’m also curious as to why you have an issue with the AVN..I was unaware that there was any particular motive, other then information distribution, that this organisation had….have they also claimed to see alien life lately?</b></p>
<p>Not that I&#8217;m aware of, but they do claim various conspiracies whenever it suits them, e.g. snippets from Meryl Dorey, National President, Australian Vaccination Network:</p>
<p>&#8220;Our governments are all in the pockets of Monsanto and the like&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;This is not journalism, this is marketing and Channel 7 is nothing more than a paid stooge for Big Pharma.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;This is the sort of nonsense these &#8216;medical experts&#8217; are spreading &#8211; the sort of dangerous, illogical treatments they are pushing. And their word is law &#8211; and our side gets no credibility despite having the information and research on our side.&#8221;</p>
<p>This vilification of the medical community is simply sociopathic when we compare our quality of life to that of our great-grandparents. Where is the <b>proper research</b> from anti-vaccination groups that they claim to have? Once again, for the umpteenth time, I&#8217;d love to see it.</p>
<p>The AVN clearly promote the Big Pharma conspiracy, remain closed to all evidence that threatens their belief system, and therefore one can safely conclude that they are on the whole irrational, and should not be taken seriously. Not exactly an equal authority Vs. authority or reference Vs reference now, is it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BastardSheep</title>
		<link>http://scepticsbook.com/2009/05/02/a-brief-report-from-todays-debate/comment-page-2/#comment-2013</link>
		<dc:creator>BastardSheep</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 03:47:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scepticsbook.com/?p=1165#comment-2013</guid>
		<description>@Interested, a quick google search concentrating on results from websites that aren&#039;t anti-vaxx and actually like to have a bit of dignity in regards to their medical studies and results will bring up the results for you if you care to take a look.  I&#039;ll paste a few quick URL&#039;s for you that I stumbled across in less than a minute of searching.
.
http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&amp;HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733811885
http://www.who.int/whr/2005/chapter6/en/index1.html
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/dym142v1
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Rubella-us-1966-93-cdc.gif
.
There&#039;s many many more studies out there all showing the same thing.  They may not be double blind but without purposefully exposing people to pertussis etc it&#039;s a tad hard to conduct a double blind study.  The same goes with seatbelts.  
.
Of course, if you constantly view anti-vaxx websites such as the AVN you&#039;re never going to see this information, simply things which have already been debunked and proven wrong such as Andrew Wakefields paper and the works of &quot;doctor&quot; Carley mentioned above.
.
The reason why the issue with the AVN is due to the misinformation and outright lies that they spread, while pretending to be pro-choice and giving people accurate information to make informed decisions.  They do precisely the opposite while also promoting S.C.A.M remedies.  If it has evidence for it, if it&#039;s supported by facts they&#039;re against it.  If it isn&#039;t supported by evidence or is opposed to the facts, they push it.  They&#039;re doing a scare campaign that will only result in many more deaths than those they have already caused.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Interested, a quick google search concentrating on results from websites that aren&#8217;t anti-vaxx and actually like to have a bit of dignity in regards to their medical studies and results will bring up the results for you if you care to take a look.  I&#8217;ll paste a few quick URL&#8217;s for you that I stumbled across in less than a minute of searching.<br />
.<br />
<a href="http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&amp;HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733811885" rel="nofollow">http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&amp;HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733811885</a><br />
<a href="http://www.who.int/whr/2005/chapter6/en/index1.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.who.int/whr/2005/chapter6/en/index1.html</a><br />
<a href="http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/dym142v1" rel="nofollow">http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/dym142v1</a><br />
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Rubella-us-1966-93-cdc.gif" rel="nofollow">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Rubella-us-1966-93-cdc.gif</a><br />
.<br />
There&#8217;s many many more studies out there all showing the same thing.  They may not be double blind but without purposefully exposing people to pertussis etc it&#8217;s a tad hard to conduct a double blind study.  The same goes with seatbelts.<br />
.<br />
Of course, if you constantly view anti-vaxx websites such as the AVN you&#8217;re never going to see this information, simply things which have already been debunked and proven wrong such as Andrew Wakefields paper and the works of &#8220;doctor&#8221; Carley mentioned above.<br />
.<br />
The reason why the issue with the AVN is due to the misinformation and outright lies that they spread, while pretending to be pro-choice and giving people accurate information to make informed decisions.  They do precisely the opposite while also promoting S.C.A.M remedies.  If it has evidence for it, if it&#8217;s supported by facts they&#8217;re against it.  If it isn&#8217;t supported by evidence or is opposed to the facts, they push it.  They&#8217;re doing a scare campaign that will only result in many more deaths than those they have already caused.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
